Tag Archives: Retaliation

Where a defendant employer and two codefendant supervisors have moved for summary judgment on a plaintiff’s retaliation claim, the motion must be denied given the plaintiffs’ allegations that the defendants did not comply with binding state regulations.

Where the town of North Attleborough retaliated against five members of the North Attleborough Firefighters Unions for engaging in concerted, protected activity, the town has violated §10(a)(3), and, derivatively, §10(a)(1) of G.L.c. 150E, and must be ordered to cease and desist from retaliating against the five union members.

Where a defendant employer was awarded summary judgment on a retaliation claim asserted by a terminated employee under the False Claims Act, the judgment must be vacated because the factual record reveals a sufficient foundation for a reasonable inference that the employee was terminated for retaliatory reasons.

Where a plaintiff doctor was awarded nearly $2 million in a retaliation suit, the defendant employer’s appeal must fail, as the evidence was sufficient to convince a reasonable jury that the termination of the plaintiff was in retaliation for protected conduct.

Where a defendant employer was awarded summary judgment on a plaintiff’s claims of sex discrimination and retaliation, the judgment should be affirmed, as a transfer of the plaintiff to a different department was not an adverse employment action and was not the result of disparate treatment.

Where a defendant employer was awarded summary judgment on a plaintiff’s retaliation claim, the judgment must be affirmed based on the plaintiff’s inability to show that she suffered an adverse employment action after complaining about age discrimination.

Where a defendant has been charged with retaliation and discrimination, the complaint must be dismissed for lack of allegations that would show that the defendant made the decision to terminate the plaintiff or harbored any discriminatory animus.

Where a plaintiff has filed suit against the defendant employer and two codefendant individuals, the complaint must be dismissed with respect to the individual defendants given the plaintiff’s failure to name them as respondents in an administrative proceeding with the Massachusetts Commission Against Discrimination.

Where the complainant, a Muslim man of East Indian national origin, filed a complaint claiming the respondents (1) unlawfully discriminated against him on account of his race, religion and national origin and (2) terminated his employment in retaliation for his protesting their directive to remove his hijab, the complainant failed to establish discrimination based on his religion and national origin, but there is sufficient evidence of unlawful retaliation, so the complainant is entitled to lost wages plus $10,000 in emotional distress damages.

Where a judge allowed a defendant’s motion for judgment notwithstanding the verdict after a jury ruled in favor of the plaintiff, the judge erred, as the evidence of causation was sufficient to support the verdict.